Categories: Insights, Case Law

Tag: Demansionamento


28 Jan 2018

Refusal of service is justified only in the case of serious default by the employer

 The Court of Cassation, with judgement No. 836 dated 16 January 2018 overturned the judgement issued by the Court of the Appeals having local jurisdiction, which agreeing to the conclusions reached by the judge of first instance, had confirmed the unlawfulness of the dismissal ordered to an employee, who, by refusing to perform demoting tasks, failed to go to work for more than four days. The Court of Appeals, ordering the reintegration of the employee at work pursuant to article 18, Law No. 300/70, deemed such behaviour as a legitimate form of self-protection pursuant to article 1460 of the Civil Code The Court of Cassation – while confirming the demotion and the partial application of the requirements for the application of the aforementioned civil law – accepted the employer’s appeal (losing party in the proceedings on the merits) on the principle that the assignment to demoted tasks does not authorise the worker to refuse to provide service at all. This is valid where the employer (as in the specific case) meets its primary obligations such as payment of salary, social security contributions and insurance, in addition to health and safety protection. In summary, only in the case of employer’s full default then refusal to provide service is allowed and deemed justified. Otherwise, what occurs is a conduct in violation of the principle of good faith as established in article 1460 of the Civil Code, in addition to the duties of due diligence and submittal to the hierarchical authority of the employer.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Contact

Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.

Fill in the form

More news and insights

30 Jul 2026

Corporate controls and data protection: what balance?

A recent judgment of the Court of Pisa, No. 800 of 13 June 2026, addresses a topic of particular interest for companies: the delicate balance between the protection…

30 Jul 2026

Unfair dismissal and reinstatement: the employee must repay the payment in lieu of notice

With order no. 22187 of 28 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether payment in lieu of notice paid to an employee must be…

30 Jul 2026

Did you know that… an employee’s natural incapacity does not prevent the time limit for challenging a dismissal from running?

In judgment no. 23486 of 18 July 2026, the Joint Chambers of the Italian Supreme Court (i.e. “Corte di Cassazione”) held that the natural incapacity of an employee…

22 Jul 2026

An employee may not steer clients toward a competitor before resigning (Camera di Commercio Francese in Italia, 22 July 2026 – Vittorio De Luca, Silvia Zulato)

With Order No. 1723 of 26 May 2026, the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) confirmed the liability of an employee who, prior to the termination of his…

20 Jul 2026

Access to Naspi (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 20 July 2026 – Vittorio De Luca e Alessandra Zilla)

Regulatory Framework  The New Social Insurance for Employment (NASpI), introduced by Legislative Decree No. 22 of 4 March 2015, is the primary income support scheme for employees who…

14 Jul 2026

Artificial Intelligence and employment: new obligations for Businesses (Ai4Business, 14 July 2026 – Martina De Angeli)

Artificial intelligence has now become an integral part of business processes: recruitment, performance evaluation, work organization, training, and document management are just some of the areas in which…